Environmentalists Uncertain Over "Ag Certainty" Bill

Bill would allow farmers to stay with current rules for 10 years if they agree to inspections

Environmentalists continue to disagree over a General Assembly bill that would exempt some farmers from new pollution rules for 10 years. Farmers who sign up for the so-called “ag certainty” program would subject themselves to more inspections and paperwork to prove that they are properly caring for their land and preventing pollution. In exchange, they wouldn’t have to comply with any new local or state pollution rules for 10 years. The bill has inspired a rare rift among environmentalists, who disagree over whether it’s the best way to reduce pollution from farms.

Proponents of the bill, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, argue the stringent requirements for participation means there will be a high level of confidence that farmers are, in fact, reducing pollution. Alison Prost, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the ag certainty program would be like a carrot — rather than a stick — encouraging farmers to take extra steps to help the bay.

Now, why would anyone disagree with that?

Opponents, including many riverkeepers and other environmental groups, are worried there’s not enough transparency in the program for the public or lawmakers to see if it’s working.

“Transparency creates certainty,” said Josh Tulkin, state director for the Sierra Club, one of more than 20 groups opposing the bill.

I also think they hope to ramp up restrictions on agriculture to a much higher degree before the end of the new 'Bay Diet' goal.  They'll probably have to in order to get the gains they expect after the cities and counties fail to achieve their goals.   Frankly, and sadly, I don't think it's going to happen.

Does anyone care what the farmers think?

The state’s agriculture secretary, Earl “Buddy” Hance, said if the program requires more public disclosures, then it will be difficult to get farmers to participate. Information such as fertilizer application, how many acres are devoted to different crops and the like is considered proprietary business information by farmers, he said.

Hance and others cited a recent federal court case in which the Waterkeeper Alliance sued an Eastern Shore chicken farmer and Perdue Farms over allegations of water pollution. The farmer and Perdue won, but the case made farmers leery of how information about their farms might be used against them by environmentalists.

Yep, that's what happens when you let people onto your land to look around, or when you let the government count your guns... 

Overall, I think the program is a good idea, but I am sensitive to the farmers questions regarding the results of inspections.  If it is turned over to the goody goodies to try and find things to sue over, I'd be reluctant to play the game, too.